Journal of Small Business Management 2011 49(1), pp.

55–70

Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers

jsbm_314 55..70 by Heidi M. Neck and Patricia G. Greene
We explore three “worlds” that entrepreneurship educators generally teach in and introduce a new frontier where we discuss
teaching entrepreneurship as a method. The method is a way of thinking and acting, built on a set of assumptions using a
portfolio of techniques to create. It goes beyond understanding, knowing, and talking and requires using, applying, and acting. At
the core of the method is the ability for students to practice entrepreneurship and we introduce a portfolio of practice-based
pedagogies. These include starting businesses as coursework, serious games and simulations, design-based thinking, and
reflective practice.

Introduction
Entrepreneurship is complex, chaotic, and lacks any notion of linearity. As edu- cators, we have the responsibility to develop
the discovery, reasoning, and implementation skills of our students so they may excel in highly uncertain envi- ronments. These
skills enhance the like- lihood that our students will identify and capture the right opportunity at the right time for the right
reason. However, this is a significant responsibility and chal- lenge. The current approaches to entre- preneurship education are
based on a world of yesterday—a world where pre- cedent was the foundation for future
NECK AND GREENE 55 action, where history often did predict the future. Yet, entrepreneurship is about creating new
opportunities and executing in uncertain and even cur- rently unknowable environments. Entre- preneurship and entrepreneurship
education have more relevance today than ever before.
For many years, it was popular to ask, “Can entrepreneurship be taught?” As educators, we always said, “yes, of course” and
went on to list the myriad of reasons rehearsed in advance of such questions. Our answers might include, “it is a skill set,” or “we
have been doing it for years,” or “it depends what you mean by entrepreneurship.” In reality and
Heidi M. Neck is an associate professor and the Jeffry A. Timmons professor of entrepre- neurial studies at Babson College.
Patricia G. Greene is President’s Distinguished Professor in Entrepreneurship at Babson College
Address correspondence to: Heidi M. Neck, Babson College, Babson College, 231 Forest Street, Babson Park, MA 02457-
0310. E-mail: hneck@babson.edu.
teach upon reflection in looking at the future
aspects of strategy, finance, law, of entrepreneurship education, we
may
human resources, leadership, marketing, be willing to admit that we were
wrong
accounting, operations, and ethics in any and willing to consider alternative
expla-
given class. The next class might offer nations. Might it be that entrepreneur-
perspectives from sociology, anthropol- ship, using current popular
approaches,
ogy, and business history. This is at a cannot really be taught and that real-
time when those in the discipline of world experience actually does super-
entrepreneurship also strive for sede an expensive college education?
increased legitimacy as an academic Just look at Bill Gates, Steve Jobs,
field, pushing for the research rigor that Richard Branson, Mary Kay Ash, and
some suggest drives intellectual maturity Debbie Fields who are all incredibly
suc-
(Brush et al. 2003). As a field, entrepre- cessful entrepreneurs without a
college
neurship essentially covers prestart-up degree. Should their success signal
any-
and beyond, from intellectual property to thing to entrepreneurship educators?
Not
initial public offering. Though the field really. For every Bill Gates, there are
a
of entrepreneurship has progressed million entrepreneurs who experience
beyond evaluating and describing the “in the real world” dramatic, life-
altering
entrepreneur as the lone maverick with failure that we do not read about in the
superhero powers, the entrepreneur is popular press.
nonetheless a central figure in the emerg- We know what you are thinking. First,
ing stages of business creation. As such, we say entrepreneurship cannot be
entrepreneurship educators also teach taught. Then we suggest that experience
foundation principles, often considered supersedes education. Finally, we say
“the soft stuff,” of living with uncertainty, ignore Bill, Steve, Richard, Mary
Kay,
opportunity identification, entrepreneur- and Debbie—the kings and queens
of
ial mindset, creating, decision-making, learning entrepreneurship outside the
developing empathy, business design, ivory tower of the academy. Confused?
culture, life–work balance, social respon- Our confusion is intentional to
illustrate
 sibility, and leveraging failure. The mar- where we are as educators in the
riage of all of these content areas is value dynamic, cross-disciplinary field of
entre-
creation and capture entrepreneurship as preneurship. The academic field and
an engine to create economic, social, and practical field of entrepreneurship
have
personal value. For many students of consistently been at odds throughout the
entrepreneurship, whereas their peers years, but such conflict has led to a rich
are pursuing careers, they are pursuing a and diverse pool of collaborative
life path. It looks different, it feels differ- educators—academics,
entrepreneurs,
ent; it is different—especially in today’s consultants, investors, full-time, part-
global environment. time, academically qualified, and profes-
The purpose of this paper is to sionally qualified—with a common
present a framework for teaching in a understanding that entrepreneurship
new world. We advance the concept of education is important. Across the
field,
teaching entrepreneurship as a method, there are differences in how we
which is in contrast to the current approach teaching entrepreneurship.
ways—the known worlds—in which we Given the multidisciplinary field of
are currently teaching entrepreneurship. entrepreneurship, the content covered
in
We are not proposing a particular peda- most entrepreneurship courses is far-
gogy. If anything, we would firmly fall in reaching. An entrepreneurship
educator
Forest and Peterson’s (2006) andragogy is often expected to know everything
camp anyway. On the contrary, we are about every field. It is not uncommon
to
proposing an entirely different approach
56
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
for to teaching entrepreneurship. We are
the monolithic personality of the proposing an overarching framework
for
entrepreneur. Brockhaus and Horwitz teaching entrepreneurship that will
(1986) reviewed the early trait literature require many different approaches to
and concluded that there are four major teaching and learning—some of
which
personality traits of individuals: need for have not yet been discovered or
created.
achievement, internal locus of control, We are proposing that teaching
entrepre-
high risk-taking propensity, and toler- neurship requires teaching a method.
ance for ambiguity. Ten years later, The method is teachable, learnable, but it
Miner (1996) proposed four psychologi- is not predictable. The method is
people-
cal personality patterns of entrepreneurs: dependent but not dependent on a
type
personal advisors, empathetic super of person. The entrepreneurship method
salespeople, real managers, and expert goes beyond understanding, knowing,
idea generators. Also, most recently, and talking and demands using, apply-
Shane posited the role of the entrepre- ing, and acting. Most importantly the
neurial gene, taking the nature versus method requires practice. Entrepreneur-
nurture discussion to new extremes ship requires practice. Learning a
(Mount 2010). Any discussion of the method, we believe, is often more
impor-
numerous challenges in this trait line of tant than learning specific content. In
an
research can range from problems with ever-changing world, we need to teach
defining (who is an entrepreneur and methods that stand the test of dramatic
who are we picking to represent “suc- changes in content and context.
cessful” entrepreneurs), differentiating We introduce this method in light of
and explaining (these are traits of suc- other current approaches to teaching
cessful people in many lines of work) to entrepreneurship.
prediction (do we all not wish we could

The Entrepreneurship Education

Known Worlds of
We present three different approaches used to teach entrepreneurship. Some educators rely on one approach, whereas others
incorporate two or even all approaches. Though it is tempting to think our worlds represent the evolution of the field, we do not
think of them strictly in chronological order and recog- nize that each of these approaches is being used in classrooms today.
pick the winners)?
In this world, the entrepreneur reigns supreme with almost superhero charac- teristics. We can consider this approach from three
perspectives. First, though it is easy to consider this an early world of entrepreneurship, this is not a time- bound discussion. Bill
Gartner (1988) gave us a notable moment of punctuated equilibrium that prompted many in the field to move beyond traits, but it
is hard to let go. We are also sure that you still hear, as we do, the “you cannot teach entrepreneurship” mantra at many of the
more practitioner-oriented programs you give or attend. Despite our introduction The Entrepreneur World
to this essay, we do beg to differ. After We have already acknowledged the
all, this same question has been asked importance of the entrepreneur in this
about both leaders and teachers (Quinn field of study. A large amount of
litera-
and Anding 2005). ture has developed around the “traits”
A second consideration of entrepre- approach, much of it starting with the
neurial content in this world is the fact economic development work of David
that most of the characteristics studied McClelland (1965). Even today,
research-
were identified in research projects in ers around the world continue to search
which the samples were entirely white
NECK AND GREENE 57
ready males. Methodologically, it is hard to
to screen people out of entrepre- support any sort of generalization
from
neurship though they are still coming that, and none of our worlds of entrepre-
into their own? neurship are exclusively males.
The entrepreneur world is heavily Third, this world, especially in the
influenced by a lecture teaching method- early days, uses a quite narrow
definition
ology, basically a stand-and-deliver of success—one that is entirely economi-
approach. However, we combine this cally based. It is anchored in the
smallest
with the use of many guest speakers, definition of entrepreneurship, the cre-
selected with a precise list of criteria ation of a small business, even if it is
one
reflecting again in this world’s particular that is intended to grow. As
Giacalone
definition of “entrepreneur” and (2004) reminded us, “Teaching students
“success.” This means that most of our to use the single-minded materialistic
guest speakers tend to be white males value system distorts the reality of daily
who have started and usually grown life, were we routinely assimilate nonma-
their businesses. To be fair, over the terialistic goals” (p. 416). The finding
years, the examples of role models have that entrepreneurs are motivated by
become somewhat more diverse along more than money is long-standing and
some dimensions, but it is a continuing quite robust across studies, and yet,
we
push. rarely tie the motivation to the entrepre-
The pedagogical implications of the neurs’ own definitions of success.
entrepreneur world are a description of The entrepreneur is the champion in
the entrepreneur, neatly fitting into an this world. On the delivery side, as
teach-
“observe, describe, and measure” ers, we use a variety of entrepreneurial
approach, supporting categorizations assessments, self-examinations, the “do
and some correlations but not able to go you have the right stuff” approach.
We
beyond (Christensen and Carlile 2009). probe for those characteristics the
early
In some sense, our students taught in research suggested were important, such
this world see entrepreneurship as a box as locus of control or need for
achieve-
in which they either fit or do not. Their ment. Many of these are interesting
and
 concern is that they do not have the right valid measures but not necessarily
stuff/characteristics to be an entrepre- precise for identifying entrepreneurs.
neur. As teachers, our choices of entre- Then there are some of the “others.”
Two
preneurial illustrations set up role questions we recently found in an online
models and our students often do not see quiz included the responses (and
these
a reflection of themselves. The ironic would be the ones desirable for entre-
part is that with all this description, preneurs): “I like to be ‘wild’ and unin-
picking the winners does not get any hibited and go fast. I like to act on
easier. impulse.” Though these may be extreme examples, the tone is not an
unusual part
The Process World of the discussion. One noted professor
Low and MacMillan (1988) called for describes his explicit goal as
making his
more causal, process-oriented research. students’ “spines sweat.” On a recent
trip
Amit, Glosten, and Muller (1993) to Malaysia, one of the authors of this
reviewed core entrepreneurship research essay saw a grade sheet posted on a
challenges and concluded that given the bulletin board with the results of an
interdisciplinary nature of entrepreneur- entrepreneurial assessment. How
would
ship, analytical and empirical tools the teenage recipient of a 60 on his or
should be borrowed from other disci- her assessment think about entrepre-
plines to develop theory around the neurship in the future. Are we really
process of entrepreneurship. The call
58
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Student was echoed in Venkataraman’s (1997)
1: The longer the plan the seminal paper on the distinctive
domain
better. A long plan indicates more of entrepreneurship. The influence of
work and a better grade. strategy scholars working in the field
Student 2: It’s the midpoint of the coupled with calls for more rigorous
and
semester and I’m convinced my methodically sound studies led scholars
opportunity is not viable but I to operationalize entrepreneurship as a
have to complete the plan because process with greater emphasis on the
it represents 30% of my grade. I organizational level of analysis. The
don’t have time to start over. process view extends the reach of entre-
Student 3: Once I’m finished with preneurship from firm creation to firm
this plan on my new bar I’m going exit; thus, there is increased attention
to mail it to every venture capital- given to capital markets, resource
alloca-
ist in the area. tion, performance, and growth. The process research results
found their way
The argument for business plan into the classroom, and textbooks today
writing can succinctly be summed up in take a more process-oriented
approach.
one sentence: the business plan is The process is presented and taught in a
required for investment. Gumpert linear fashion as one of identifying an
(2002), in his entertaining book, Burn opportunity, developing the concept,
Your Business Plan, questioned why we understanding resource requirements,
even write business plans. He points to a acquiring resources, implementation,
growing industry of consultants, soft- and exit (Morris 1998).
ware designers, and educators that We refer to the process world as one
“market” business plan writing and have of planning and prediction. The
analyti-
created the perception that it is a cal approach of teaching opportunity
required document for every entrepre- evaluation, feasibility analysis,
business
neur. Though the true premise of his planning, and financial forecasting is
book is about developing relationships the cornerstone for most entrepreneur-
with a spectrum of investors, his point is ship curricula today. Perhaps the
duly noted. Even venture capitalists do process world is so popular to teach in
not want the business plan novels; they because we can. When most agreed
that
want action and proof of concept first. As entrepreneurs did not have specific
educators, we must ask ourselves if we traits, we were motivated to find pro-
 are forcing students to write a business cesses to teach. Business plan writing
plan too soon. and the case method in this world are
To complement the planning portion the preferred pedagogies. In a field
of core entrepreneurship courses, the where we argue that there are no right
case method is used so students can answers, the process world, from an
learn about the various decision options education perspective, is the closest
we
faced by entrepreneurs. The case study is can get.
admittedly a powerful tool that allows Though the business planning process
the center of learning to be with the is an attractive and powerful learning
students; however, the majority of process, a disproportionate amount of
faculty are never adequately trained in time is spent honing secondary
research
the case method. Teaching using the case skills than actually taking smart
action in
method takes an extraordinary amount the real world. Any educator that has
of time—both in prep as well as in used the business plan as a major course
mastery. Christensen (1991) stated that project (authors included) understands
the case discussion teacher has to master the inner thoughts of students:
questioning, listening, and response;
NECK AND GREENE 59
started these skills are inextricably linked, fail to
to make its way into the classroom effectively work in isolation, and
require
in the last five years. In this world, we are teaching flexibility and, we would
argue,
again focusing on the entrepreneur or the skills of an improvisation artist. The
entrepreneurial team but in a quite differ- downside of teaching a case without
ent way. This newer focus on the person adequate training is that student
learning
is in a more dynamic way that recognizes is compromised. A classroom
discussion,
the potential for learning how to think as engaging as it may be, is not the
same
entrepreneurially. If we start from Neiss- as a case study discussion and does
not
er’s 1967 definition of cognition as the necessarily lead to the
accomplishment
processes that allow sensory inputs to be of learning objectives.
transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, The process world in our view is one
retrieved, and used, we can then advance, of prediction. It focuses on a linear
at least for our purposes, to the entrepre- process that if followed correctly,
will
neurial cognition approach. Now we look increase the likelihood of venture
at the “knowledge structures that people success. The steps in the process are
use to make assessments, judgments, or generally introduced in introductory
decisions involving opportunity evalua- entrepreneurship courses, then
electives
tion, venture creation, and growth” are offered to delve deeper into particu-
(Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 97). As educators, lar steps. For example, classes on
oppor-
we can work with knowledge structures. tunity, entrepreneurial marketing,
The early questions in cognitive entrepre- entrepreneurial finance, and
managing
neurship focused on topics such as how growth are commonplace and main-
do entrepreneurs think and is that a stream in the most developed entrepre-
potential competitive advantage? (Mitch- neurship programs. The problem is
that
ell etal. 2002). This approach brings entrepreneurship is neither linear nor
us back to the question of who is the predictable, but it is easy to teach as if it
entrepreneur or when is someone an were.
entrepreneur?
The more helpful question is “how do The Cognition World
 people think entrepreneurially?” This is a Again, let us state that our approach
much more useful construct to guide our here is not evolutionary or linear, but
educational and research activities in the there is an undeniable time element
in
field, recognizing the great diversity in that the cognitive approach emerged
the ways people can be entrepreneurs. more recently than our other two
worlds.
We were recently asked quite seriously In fact, the cognitive approach has
even
about the role of “gut” in teaching entre- been described as emerging as a
preneurship, and it is a very fair ques- response to the “failure of past
‘entrepre-
tion. The mental models underlying the neurial personality’ based research to
cognitive approach (Krueger 2007) clearly distinguish the unique contribu-
provide us with the ways and means to tions to the entrepreneurial process of
address such questions, leading toward entrepreneurs as people” (Mitchell et
al.
the potential of providing both skills and 2002, p. 93). This description is
interest-
increased confidence to our students. In ing in that it recognizes not only the
this way, our focus expands to include earlier research focus on the person but
both doing and thinking. also the role of the entrepreneurial
So, what and how do we teach in this process.
world? We pay attention to different The cognitive approach in entrepre-
things, including the decision to become neurship is really only about 15
years old
an entrepreneur and how to understand and with a few exceptions, has only
that decision. We investigate the entre-
60
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
models preneur and most certainly now include
reduces the risk of failure. The the team. We spend more time on
dis-
vast majority of our student’s plans are covery, specifically on the
identification
not based on a truly innovative product and exploitation of opportunities, and
or service. Even more absent is the inno- we explore what we believe to be
the
vation in business models. This leaves us central question of this world: how
do
in the position of largely replicating people think entrepreneurially.
existing forms of businesses and there- Part of our emphasis to guide peda-
fore, even existing kinds of economies. gogy is therefore on the think . . . do.
In
The cognition world is growing in popu- order to do this, we use cases and
simu-
larity because it recognizes the impor- lations, but we use them in a different
tance of the mind and the dynamic way. When we focus on the entrepreneur
approach to learning how to think as the protagonist, we are exploring not
entrepreneurially. only the venture process but the decision-making process.
Others are using the writing of narratives and scripts using the Mitchell etal. (2000) approach of arrangement, willingness,

New Entrepreneurship Method

Frontiers:
as a
and ability to further the students’ under-
Why do we support entrepreneurship standing of how they process
informa-
as a method? Because a process implies tion about entrepreneurship. We also
that you will get to a specific destination. have seen a number of great
approaches,
Entrepreneurship is often thought of as a exercises, and classes on the search
for
process—a process of identifying an opportunities, including Jim Fiet’s sys-
opportunity, understanding resource tematic search (Fiet and Patel 2006;
requirements, acquiring resources, plan- Nixon etal. 2006) and DeTienne and
ning, and implementing. However, the Chandler’s 2004 opportunity
identifica-
word “process” assumes known inputs tion exercise. Overall, in this world,
we
and known outputs as in a manufactur- are focusing on entrepreneurial deci-
ing process. For example, building a car sions and we do it by discussing the
role
on an assembly line is a manufacturing of expert scripts, heuristics, and
schema,
process. You know all the parts; you leading to the construction of entrepre-
know how they fit together; and you neurial mental models.
know the type of car you will have at the In summary, the entrepreneur world
end. A process is quite predictable. has clearly informed us that there is no
Entrepreneurship is not predictable. On one type of entrepreneur. This means
the other hand, a method represents a one of the challenges of the cognitive
body of skills or techniques; therefore, world is to avoid the trap of the entre-
teaching entrepreneurship as a method preneur world and therefore be able to
simply implies that we are helping stu- recognize the richness of a diversity of
dents understand, develop, and practice cognitive approaches, again linked to
a
the skills and techniques need for pro- diversity of entrepreneurial motivations
ductive entrepreneurship. and desired outcomes or definitions of
Figure 1 contrasts teaching entrepre- success. At the same time, with an
over-
neurship as a process and a method. reliance on teaching entrepreneurship as
Teaching entrepreneurship as a method a process, the process world appears
requires going beyond understanding, linear and predictable. Innovation is
knowing, and talking; it requires using, often absent because we teach and
applying, and acting. Entrepreneurship applaud the use of existing business
requires practice. Learning a method models often arguing that using proven
may be more important than learning
NECK AND GREENE 61
 Figure 1 Process versus Method
Entrepreneurship as a Process Entrepreneurship as a Method
Known inputs and outputs A body of skills or techniques
Steps Toolkit
Predictive Creative
Linear Iterative
Precision Experimentation
Tested Practiced
62 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT content. In an ever-changing world, we
underlying assumptions of the method need to teach methods that stand the
include the following: test of dramatic changes in content and context. Rather
than viewing practical or
(1) Applies to novice and experts: the pedagogical knowledge as derivative of
assumption is that the method scientific knowledge, it is more appro-
applies across student populations priate to view practice and teaching
as
and works regardless of experience distinct modes of knowing in their
own
level. What is important is that each respects (Van de Ven and Johnson
student understands how he or she 2006). Knowledge of teaching and
prac-
views the entrepreneurial world tice take their place alongside of
science
and his or her place in it. It repre- as distinct and complementary
elements
sents the foundation of the method. of professional knowledge (Kondrat
(2) The method is inclusive, meaning 1992 in Van de Ven and Johnson 2006).
that the definition of entrepreneur- When each of these different kinds
of
ship is expanded to include any knowledge are together focused on the
organization at multiple levels of world’s complex problems, they have
analysis. Therefore, success is idio- the potential to produce a deeper
syncratic and multidimensional. understanding than any one type of
(3) The method requires continuous knowledge applied alone (Van de Ven
practice. The focus here is on and Johnson 2006). Perhaps, this is ulti-
doing, then learning, rather than mately the nature of entrepreneurship
learn then do. As a result a reflec- education.
tive practice component is incred- Approaching entrepreneurship as a
ibly important to learning. method means teaching a way of
(4) The method is for an unpredictable thinking and acting built on a set of
 environment. assumptions using a portfolio of tech- niques to encourage
creating. The
The Method approach firmly recog- method forces students to go beyond
nizes that entrepreneurship is teachable. understanding, knowing, and talking.
It
Similar to the approach to leadership dis- requires using, applying, and acting.
The
cussed in Quinn and Anding, “We can be method requires practice. Therefore,
our
in a normal, reactive state or an extraor-
(3) dinary, creative state. Anyone can move
Students use information technol- from where they are now to a more
ogy (IT) for decision-making and reactive or more creative state” (1999,
p.
productivity and learn that IT is 489). The question is how to do this.
For
essential in supporting all areas of a us, it means experimenting with a
peda-
business. gogical portfolio that emphasizes the
(4) Students experience social respon- dimensions of the method. We suggest
a
sibility and philanthropy through portfolio here that includes starting
busi-
the donation of their time (six hours nesses as part of coursework,
serious
minimum) and business profits to games and simulations, design-based
charitable organizations. learning, and reflective practice.
Many business schools today have Starting Businesses
incorporated the real-world practice of Starting businesses as part of course-
business creation into their entrepre- work has become more mainstream
neurship curriculum. For example, the over the past few years. Babson
College,
2010 United States Association for Small for example, started its Foundations
of
Business and Entrepreneurship winner Management and Entrepreneurship
for model entrepreneurship course was (FME) course in 1996 where first
year,
awarded to Monmouth University for its undergraduate students are required
to
capstone experience where students start a business during their first year at
work in teams to start businesses. the college. The focus of FME is on
However, as we talk about a pedagogy of opportunity recognition, resource
parsi-
practice within the entrepreneurship mony, team development, holistic think-
method, we are advocating for real- ing, and value creation through harvest.
world venture creation courses to take The vehicle of learning is a limited
dura-
place at the beginning and not at the end tion business start-up steeped in
entre-
of entrepreneurship programs. We preneurial thinking and a basic
suggest this because at the undergradu- understanding of all functions of busi-
ate level, students have little business ness. Because FME is a required
course,
experience and to truly develop empathy all first-year undergraduates
experience
for the entrepreneur, one must experi- the entire cycle of entrepreneurship.
ence new venture creation before he or The course is a blend of theory and
she can study business management or practice, which forms the basis for the
other disciplinary areas. Furthermore, a entire Babson undergraduate core cur-
level of confidence is generated from the riculum. The overall purpose of the
“doing” experience and students begin to course is to allow students to
practice
experience success and failure as well as business and entrepreneurship so the
practice methods for navigating content comes alive. The objectives of
unknown territories. Students experi- the course include:
ence the ups and downs of entrepreneur- ship and learn about the sweat equity (1) Students practice entrepreneurship
associated with a start-up. They gain and generate economic and social
knowledge of the importance of leader- value.
ship yet struggle with finding and devel- (2) Students understand the nature of
oping their own style. They practice business as an integrated enterprise
entrepreneurship and through experi- and knowledge of all key business
ence, learn about the power of human areas is essential in developing a
agency, yet effectively managing and uti- well-rounded business aptitude in
lizing human resources is more art than preparation for the real world.
science. Students feel defeat after making
NECK AND GREENE 63
experimenting poor decisions and experience elation
with the use of serious over small wins. In hindsight, they
games in our entrepreneurship curricu- underestimate the role of trust between
lum for some time. To date, our focus managers and employees and learn del-
has been on three main areas. First, we egation is not a choice. In the end,
they
developed and tested a social media finally learn that the best opportunity in
alternative reality game for teaching the world is of little value without a
social media to faculty members. The strong team that can execute. Such
intent was to help faculty understand strength is derived from open and con-
what is available, how it can be helpful stant communication, shared but chal-
to entrepreneurs, and how it can be lenging goals, and the ability to adapt in
useful in teaching entrepreneurship. The uncertain environments.
framework of the game was an elaborate treasure hunt that required the faculty/ Serious Games and Simulations
students to not only visit social media To play or not to play? That is indeed
sites but to use each one of them in a the question. The influence of computer
way that would benefit an entrepreneur games and gaming on the rising
genera-
(or entrepreneurship student). The ulti- tions is under investigation with
consid-
mate treasure was a hidden chest con- eration of the applications in both the
taining what was labeled “Roger academic and professional worlds. There
Babson’s Secret Entrepreneurship Cur- is a large variety of definitions of
serious
riculum” and was in reality a list of games, with most sharing two common
resource materials for teaching serious grounding assumptions (Greene,
Forth-
games. coming). First, there is an element of
Another one of our game experiments “game” usually defined as having
rules
was the use of an off-the-shelf computer and a sense of “gameplay.” Second,
there
game. The Sims, and the expansion is the expectation of fun. Gaming aligns
packet, Open for Business. The purpose learning, play, and participations
while
of the game was to compact the business exposing students to real challenges
in a
creation process in order to map the cre- virtual world. Today’s games require
ation of organizational culture, particu- 50–100 hours to master, which equals
larly through the way the student/ the amount of time a student spends on
entrepreneur/player used his or her time a semester-long course (Pink 2006).
 and his or her money in relation to the There is indeed a rising use of games
business, the employees, and the com- in spaces where simulations were
preva-
munity. The course is based on a combi- lent but with that added expectation
of
nation of institutional- and resource- the gameplay and fun elements. We both
based theories to provide guidance for attended a Serious Game Summit as
part
students in creating culture as a resource. of the annual Game Developers
Confer-
The greatest challenge was to get stu- ence and heard the presentations on
how
dents to stop playing the game. Hilton Garden Inn is using games to train
Finally, we developed a video game to its staff on customer service. We
learned
support learning about how entrepre- how Intel uses games for network train-
neurs think under conditions of risk, ing, and for one of the most far-reaching
uncertainty, and unknowability. The examples, how the U.S. Army and the
game is based on the theory of effectua- Canadian Army each use computer
tion (Sarasvathy 2008) and is designed to games and alternative reality games
for
replace a case study for an in-class dis- recruiting and training purposes.
cussion on entrepreneurial thinking. Babson, similar to a few other
Overall, the use of serious games is part schools, has been investigating and
of the method approach; it allows stu-
64
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
student dents a different environment to prac-
to think more entrepreneurially tice entrepreneurship. It is a playful
and creatively participate in opportunity approach for serious results.
discovery. We argue that such a discov- ery process should be grounded in fun- Design-Based Learning
damental design principles so students The basic argument is that entrepre-
are equipped with tools to not only find neurs think, and perhaps act, similar
to
opportunities but to also make opportu- designers. In our quest to define,
under-
nities (Sarasvathy 2008). stand, and even measure the entrepre- neurial
mindset, the world of design is a
Reflective Practice good starting point for our inquiry.
The idea of encouraging reflection is Entrepreneurship is an applied disci-
certainly not new, and if anything, is pline, yet we are teaching and research-
regaining its currency as a critical com- ing as if it was part of the natural
ponent of the overall learning experi- sciences (Simon 1996). Furthermore,
the
ence. From Socrates, through Thoreau to impact of entrepreneurship research
is
the present day, the emphasis on taking limited and little has been performed
to
time to think often resonates and yet assess the effectiveness of entrepreneur-
seems difficult to inject into an action- ship education. Herb Simon argued
that
based curriculum in an overarching and applied disciplines are better served
by
meaningful manner. For many of our stu- design-based curricula. Design is a
dents, simply sitting still and thinking process of divergence and convergence
does not come naturally or easily, and requiring skills in observation,
synthesis,
yet, the power of the potential searching and generating alternatives,
outcome—“being aware of our actions so critical thinking, feedback, visual
repre-
we can evaluate them” (Brockbank and sentation, creativity, problem-solving,
McGill 2007, p. 85) seems clear. and value creation. Teaching entrepre-
Reflection is an important process by neurship through a design lens can
help
which knowledge is developed from students identify and act on unique
experience. When reflecting, one consid- venture opportunities using a toolkit
of
ers an experience that has happened and observation, fieldwork, and
understand-
 tries to understand or explain it, which ing value creation across multiple
stake-
often leads to insight and deep holder groups.
learning—or ideas to test on new expe- At the core of entrepreneurship is the
riences. Reflection is particularly impor- identification and exploitation of
oppor-
tant for perplexing experiences, working tunities (Shane and Venkataraman
2000),
under conditions of high uncertainty, yet the majority of entrepreneurship
and problem-solving. As a result, it courses assume that the opportunity has
should not be a surprise that reflection is been identified. In the process world,
we
an integral component of entrepreneur- talked about case studies and business
ship education and also a way of prac- plan writing. The majority of entrepre-
ticing entrepreneurship. neurship case studies focus on opportu-
Donald Schön (1983, 1987) coined the nity evaluation, but little attention
is
term reflective practice while studying given to how the opportunity was
iden-
applied university programs such as tified beyond a surface-level discussion
medicine, law, and architectural design. related to the life history of the
entrepre-
He argued that the knowledge acquired neur. In a traditional business plan
through coursework, what he called course, very little time is given to prac-
propositional knowledge, was limited in ticing tools of creativity and idea
genera-
its impact because it did not take into tion. Overall, very little is done to train
a
consideration the reality of practice. Yet,
NECK AND GREENE 65
requires he discovered that professionals graduat-
reflection-on-practice and ing from applied programs were still
reflection-in-practice as part of a peda- effective despite how they were
taught.
gogy portfolio. Schön learned that professionals
A primary objective of reflection is enhanced their practice through
engage-
deep learning. Marton (1975) categorized ment and developed “practice
experi-
learning as surface or deep. Surface ence” (Brockbank and McGill 2007).
learning is associated with a more Schön distinguished “reflection-on-
passive approach that is premised on a practice” (do–learn–think as a process)
model of education that is dependent on from “reflection-in-practice” (do–
learn–
learning, absorbing, and regurgitating. think as a behavior). Both are
important
Deep learning is associated with a more and represent a continuous cycle of
active approach characterized by a desire learning.
to grasp and synthesize information for valuable and long-term meaning. Schön found the teachers and stu- dents engaged in
reflection on
Conclusions emergent practice that was to
There is agreement, at least in theory underpin their learning and there-
but not in practice, that entrepreneurship fore enhance their practice.
courses should be taught differently from Putting it more simply, students
the traditional management courses learned by listening, watching,
(Vesper and McMullen 1988). Kent doing and by being coached in
(1990) even stated that “entrepreneur- their doing. Not only did they
ship education must be entrepreneurial” apply what they had heard and
(p. 284), whereas early writings by learned from lectures, books, and
Plaschka and Welsch (1990) pointed to demonstrations but when they did
emerging structures in entrepreneurship an action that was part of their
education: future profession, for example using a scalpel, they also learned
As the criticisms of business by reflecting themselves and with
education show, current analytical- their [teachers], how the action
functional quantitative, tools- went. They reflected on their prac-
oriented, theoretical, left-side of tice. In addition, they would “take
the brain, overspecialized, com- with them” that reflection on their
partmentalized, approaches are previous actions as a piece of
not adequate to begin solving ill- “knowledge” or learning when
defined, unstructured, ambiguous, they went into the action the next
 complex multidisciplinary, holis- time. Thus in the next action they
tic, real world problems. (p. 61) would be bringing all their previ- ously
acquired understanding and
Table 1 summarizes the known practice and be able to reflect in
worlds (entrepreneur, process, cogni- the action as they did it, particu-
tion) that we teach in today as well as the larly if a new circumstance came
new frontier presented here— up. (Brockbank and McGill 2007,
entrepreneurship as a method. p. 87)
Our purpose was to acknowledge that we teach in several different worlds. Given the nature of entrepreneurship
Many teach in more than one world, but as a continuous cycle of action,
learning,
the environment for entrepreneurship is testing, and experimenting,
developing
changing whereas education for entre- students as reflective entrepreneurs
preneurship is not. We are living in a
66
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
 ,seuqin
pih
,ma
ecitcar
r
ngised
, t fi , e
,nr
etaenoitaerceulaV
hcetfooiloftroP
t
srecitcarpo
uenerpertne
et,ruenerpertnE
a
,se
p,n
,ra
gd
ael
rc
o
el
–
,
t c e p x e , s e i t m r fi d n
magsuoireS
oit
,no
luc
w
od
noi
inavresb
c
eruliafecarb
a
c
o
a
F
L
P
L
P i t c e fl e
irruco
,ecitcarP
onk-fles
,noitc
taerco
utropp
medn
noitcA
mgnioddnagniknihT
otgnikam-noisiceD
e
niegagne
lairuenerpertne
a
aetdnaru
,snoitalu
,sg
l
gd
,stp
dnasytivitc
enerpertnE
mis,sesaC
gnitpircs
ircstrepxE
citsirueh
nikam-noisiced
NECK AND GREENE 67
atnem,amehcs
elwonk,sledom
sserutcurt
noisiceD
noitaer
,snalps
gniled
b
latipac
,htw
,n
dnagninnalP
noitciderp
cerutnev
senisub
omsse
kcits
,snoitc
org,ste
oitacollaecr
ecnamr
noi
weN
p
m
r
p,
ni
ye
ej
kr
uo
of
tcmriF
sesaC
su
kcoH
or
a
se
re
iderP
dna,shtym,seoreH
g n i l fi o r p y t i l a n o s r e p
susreverutan;stiarT
n
ecnar
hca-
r
,scis
,smax
t
,lortn
elot,yerutru
uenerpertnE
l
aabssenisuB
n,ytiu
r
fe,serutce
nemssess
ocfosucoL
gnikat-ksi
tisneporp
gibmaro
noitpircseD
sis
ygo...fod
s
ylanAfo
gadePyra
sn
lro
uc
lev
miro
egaugne
a
lacigogadeW
oitacilpmI
world characterized by increasingly greater levels of uncertainty and even unknowability. We are advocating for an
entrepreneurship method approach for three reasons: First, entrepreneurship education is incredibly important, but current,
mainstream approaches are dated. Second, real-world experience contributes significantly to learning, but sometimes, the cost of
failing in the real world is too high. Finally, and because of points 1 and 2, entrepreneurship within a formal education structure
requires a new approach based on action and practice.
As you can see from our example peda- gogy portfolio, the method is teachable, learnable, but it is not predictable. Start- ing
businesses help students “feel” what it is like to assume the role of an entrepre- neur. Serious games and simulations allow
students to play in virtual worlds that mirror reality. Designed-based learn- ing encourages student to observe the world through a
different lens and create opportunities. Finally, reflective practice gives permission to our students to take time, think, and absorb
the learning of their practice-based curriculum. Together, our portfolio of feeling, playing, observing, creating, and thinking is the
entrepreneurship method and a prescription for practice.
The method is people-dependent but not dependent on a type of person. The entrepreneurship method goes beyond
understanding, knowing, and talking and demands using, applying, and acting. Most importantly, the method requires practice.
Entrepreneurship requires practice. Learning a method, in our opinion, is often more important than learning specific content. In
an ever-changing world, we need to teach methods that stand the test of dramatic changes in content and context. At the end of
the day, perhaps we do not teach entrepreneurship the discipline. Perhaps we teach a method to navigate the discipline.
References Amit, R., L. Glosten, and E. Muller (1993). “Challenges to Theory Devel- opment in Entrepreneurship Research,”
Journal of Management Studies 30(5), 815–834. Anding, J. (2005). “An Interview with Robert E. Quinn. Entering the Funda-
mental State of Leadership: Reflec- tions on the Path to Transformational Teaching,” Academy of Management Learning &
Education 4(4), 487–495. Brockbank, A., and I. McGill (2007). Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education, 2nd ed.
New York: Open University Press. Brockhaus, R., and P. Horwitz (1986). “The Psychology of the Entrepreneur,” in The Art &
Science of Entrepreneur- ship. Eds. D. Sexton and R. Smilor. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 25–48. Brush, C. G., I. M. Duhaime,
W. B. Gartner, A. Steward, J. A. Katz, M. A. Hitt, S. A. Alvarez, G. D. Meyer, and S. Venkataraman (2003). “Doctoral
Education in the Field of Entrepre- neurship,” Journal of Management 29(3), 309–331. Christensen, C. M., and P. R. Carlile
(2009). “Course Research: Using the Case Method to Build and Teach Man- agement Theory,” Academy of Man- agement
Learning & Education 8(2), 240–251. Christensen, C. R. (1991). “The Discus- sion Teacher in Action: Questioning, Listening,
and Response,” in Educa- tion for Judgment: The Artistry of Dis- cussion Leadership. Eds. C. Roland Christensen, D. A. Garvin,
and A. Sweet. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 153–174. DeTienne, D., and G. Chandler (2004) “Opportunity
Identification and Its Role in the Entrepreneurial Class- room: A Pedagogical Approach and Empirical Test,” Academy of
Manage- ment Learning and Education 3(3), 242–257.
68
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
tudinal Fiet, J. O., and P. C. Patel (2006). “Entre-
Study,” Journal of Personality preneurial Discovery as Constrained,
and Social Psychology 1, 389–392. Systematic Search,” Small Business
Miner, J. B. (1996). The 4 Routes to Entre- Economics 30, 215–229.
preneurial Success. San Francisco, CA: Forest, S., and T. Peterson (2006).
“It’s
Berrett-Koehler. Called Andragogy,” Academy of Man-
Mitchell, R. K., L. Busenitz, T. Lant, P. agement Learning & Education 5(1),
McDougall, E. A. Morse, and B. Smith 113–122.
(2002). “Toward a Theory of Entrepre- Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who Is an
Entre-
neurial Cognition: Rethinking the preneur? Is the Wrong Question,”
People Side of Entrepreneurship American Journal of Small Business
Research,” Entrepreneurship Theory 12(4), 11–32.
and Practice 27, 93–104. Giacalone, R. A. (2004). “A Transcendent
Mitchell, R. K., J. B. Smith, K. W. Sea- Business Education for the 21st
wright, and E. A. Morse (2000). “Cross- Century.” Academy of Management
Cultural Cognitions and the Venture Learning & Education 3(4), 487–
Creation Decision,” Academy of Man- 495.
agement Journal 53(5), 974–993. Greene, P. G. (forthcoming). “The Emer-
Morris, M. H. (1998). Entrepreneurial gence of the Serious Game Industry,”
Intensity: Sustainable Advantages for ISBE Annual Conference, Liverpool,
Individual, Organizations, and Soci- Oct 2009.
eties. Westport, CT: Quorum. Gumpert, D. E. (2002). Burn Your Busi-
Mount, I. (2010). “Nature vs. Nurture: ness Plan! Needham, MA: Lauson Pub-
Are Great Entrepreneurs Born . . . Or lishing.
Made?” Fortune Small Business, Kent, C. A. (1990). Introduction:
Educat-
December 09/January 10, 25–26. ing the Heffalump. Entrepreneurship
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive Psychology. Education: Current Developments,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Future Directions. New York:
Nixon, R. D., K. Bishop, Van G. H. Quorum Books.
Clouse, and B. Kemelgor (2006). Kondrat, M. E. (1992). “Reclaiming the
“Prior Knowledge and Entrepreneur- Practical: Formal and Substantive
ial Discovery: A Classroom Meth- Rationality in Social Work Practice,”
odology for Idea Generation,” Social Service Review 166, 237–255.
International Journal of Entrepre- Krueger, N. R. (2007). “What Lies
neurship Education 4, 19–36. Beneath? The Experiential Essence of
Pink, D. (2006). A Whole New Mind. New Entrepreneurial Thinking,” Entrepre-
 York: Riverhead Books. neurship Theory and Practice 31(1),
Plaschka, G. R., and H. P. Welsch (1990). 123–138.
“Emerging Structures in Entrepreneur- Low, M. B., and I. C. MacMillan
(1988).
ship Education: Curricular Designs “Entrepreneurship: Past Research and
and Strategies,” Entrepreneurship Future Challenges,” Journal of Man-
Theory and Practice 14(3), 55–71. agement 14(2), 139–161.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: Marton, F. (1975). “What Does It
Take to
Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Learn?” in How Students Learn. Eds.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. N. Entwistle and D. Hounsell. Lan-
Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practi- caster: Institute for Research and
tioner. New York: Basic Books. Development in Post Compulsory
——— (1987). Educating the Reflective Education, 125–138.
Practitioner. London: Jossey-Bass. McClelland, D. (1965). “Need
Achieve-
Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman (2000). ment and Entrepreneurship: A Longi-
“The Promise of Entrepreneurship as
NECK AND GREENE 69
Research,” in Advances in Entrepre- neurship, Firm Emergence and Growth. Eds. G. T. Lumpkin and J. Katz. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press, 119– 138. Vesper, K. H., and W. E. McMullen (1988). “Entrepreneurship: Today Courses, Tomorrow Degrees?”
Entre- preneurship Theory and Practice 13(1), 7–13.
70 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT a Field of Research,” Academy of Management Review 25(1), 217–
227. Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Van de Ven, A. H., and P. E. Johnson
(2006). “Knowledge for Theory and Practice,” Academy of Management Review 31(4), 802–821. Venkataraman, S. (1997).
“The Distinc- tive Domain of Entrepreneurship